Legislature(2007 - 2008)BARNES 124
03/03/2008 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB367 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 367 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 3, 2008
1:19 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Co-Chair
Representative Craig Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Anna Fairclough
Representative Bob Roses
Representative Paul Seaton
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Scott Kawasaki
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative David Guttenberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 367
"An Act relating to the sale of raw milk and raw milk products."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 367
SHORT TITLE: SALE OF RAW MILK PRODUCTS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) NEUMAN
02/13/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/08 (H) RES, FIN
02/29/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/29/08 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to Mon
03/03/08>
03/03/08 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 367.
JOSEPH MCLAUGHLIN, MD, Acting Chief
Section of Epidemiology
Division of Public Health
Department of Health & Social Services
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the Alaska Department of
Health & Social Services opposes HB 367.
ROBERT GERLACH, DVM, State Veterinarian
Office of the State Veterinarian
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 367, answered
questions regarding raw milk and stated the sale of raw milk
products should be prohibited.
ELISE HSIEH, Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 367.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 367.
DON LINTELMAN, Owner
Northern Lights Dairy
Delta Junction, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 367.
LARRY DEVILBISS
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 367.
RICK WILLIAMS
Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 367.
HEATHER FAIR
Matanuska-Susitna Borough
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 367.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CO-CHAIR CARL GATTO called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:19:58 PM. Representatives
Roses, Edgmon, Kawasaki, Wilson, Gatto, and Johnson were present
at the call to order. Representatives Seaton and Fairclough
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 367-SALE OF RAW MILK PRODUCTS
1:20:24 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 367, "An Act relating to the sale of raw milk
and raw milk products."
1:20:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MARK NEUMAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of
HB 367, stated that HB 367 addresses a concern in Alaska and is
somewhat a type of commerce legislation. He said Alaska's dairy
industry has recently suffered some significant blows. The bill
would not really affect the large milk producers in the state.
It is for those who are wanting to get into the dairy industry
with only three to five cows or with goats. He understood that
lactose-intolerant people can drink goat's milk and that goat's
milk can substitute for breast feeding. There is a large trend
across America and Alaska of people wishing to purchase a more
naturally-produced product and HB 367 would allow people to make
that choice for themselves. It goes to the relationship between
a consumer and a person who has a product for sale.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN pointed out that countries like France and
Italy are known for their high-value goat's milk products and
twenty states have moved towards this as well. Sales at the
Matanuska-Susitna Valley Farmers Market have gone from about $1
million to $4 million in the last three years. It is an
indication that people want to have a more pure product to
consume and people should have the right to this choice. The
[raw milk] product would be labeled, he said. Currently, raw
milk is labeled for animal consumption, but people take it home
and drink it themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN explained that most everything in HB 367
is already in statute until page 2, line 27 onward, where a new
section, Section 2, is added that deals with the sale of raw
milk and what that means. Raw milk is unpasteurized, he
explained. Pasteurization is the process of bringing milk up to
a specific heat for a specific time to prevent disease.
However, people have been drinking unprocessed milk for a long
time. People would like to have that opportunity and that is
the reason for this bill.
1:27:19 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO observed that nowhere in HB 367 does it refer to
cow's milk. Is the bill intended to be limited [to cow's milk],
he asked.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN responded no, this is not intended to be
limited to cow's milk. It is targeted for the smaller farmers
because the larger dairies will be selling to a commercial
market.
CO-CHAIR GATTO argued that the bill does not limit itself
because it includes sales to ["a restaurant, grocery store, or
similar establishment"].
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN replied that was included in the bill at
the request of several stores that sell natural foods and use it
as a marketing tool. For raw milk sold in a restaurant there
would need to be an indication, such as an asterisk. The bill
includes some requirements such as prominently stating that
there may be some health risks associated with raw milk. He
related that the Weston A. Price Foundation has been working for
a long time to get more of these products across the state, and
has written a report ["Response to the FDA"] included in the
committee's packets which addresses concerns and illness that
may have been caused [by raw milk]. The critical word is "may",
he said. The report identifies the real causes which never
received media attention.
1:30:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON observed that the fiscal note analysis
states three new positions would be required to monitor the
seven dairies along the road system in the Matanuska-Susitna
Valley. He surmised that HB 367 is an attempt to stimulate
economic development.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN answered yes, it is trying to establish
more economic development. He said he believes the number of
dairies is down to six and these are already checked every month
by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), so that
person is already there.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired what it would mean from an
economic development perspective if HB 367 did not pass.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN responded that trying to grow agriculture
in Alaska is very difficult. It goes beyond the amount of grain
that could be purchased through this. The value of goat's milk
is about one to two dollars per ounce and raw cow's milk can
sell for up to five or six dollars per gallon.
1:33:03 PM
JOSEPH MCLAUGHLIN, MD, Acting Chief, Section of Epidemiology,
Division of Public Health, testified that the health risks
associated with legalizing the sale of raw milk substantially
outweigh the benefits. Unpasteurized milk is far more likely to
contain human pathogens than pasteurized milk and, therefore,
increases the risk of serious and sometimes fatal infectious
illness among milk consumers. Those who are at increased risk
for serious health outcomes include the developing fetus, young
children, and the elderly who may be incapable of making an
informed decision with respect to consuming raw versus
pasteurized milk. The potential health benefits of raw milk
consumption are largely unsubstantiated by empirical scientific
evidence.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN said the Department of Health & Social Services
supports prohibiting the sale of raw milk and this is consistent
with positions taken by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
the American Medical Association, the American Public Health
Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other
professional health organizations. Many human pathogens are
commonly found in raw milk, including Escherichia coli (E. coli)
O157:H7, a lethal pathogen for some people, Salmonella, and
Campylobacter, and so on. These pathogens may be shed directly
from the animal or contaminate milk during the collection and
handling process and it is very difficult to prevent that from
occurring, he related. Multiple studies have illustrated a
dramatic increase in the incidence of multi-drug-resistant
bacteria that are present on small and large farms throughout
America. This increases the risk of serious health outcomes as
a result of getting these infections. Between the years 1973
and 1992, raw milk was associated with 46 outbreaks; 87 percent
of these outbreaks occurred in states where commercial
distribution of raw milk was legal. Between the years 1998 and
2005, the CDC traced more than 1,000 illnesses, 104
hospitalizations, and 2 deaths to the consumption of raw milk or
cheese produced from raw milk. Brand new data to be released
this spring by the CDC shows that between the years 1998 and
2006, 92 percent of the 50 outbreaks that occurred in the U.S.
during that time period were linked to consumption of
unpasteurized liquid milk.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN stated most foods run the risk of being
contaminated with human pathogens. The risk varies depending on
the origin of the food product, how it is raised, and how it is
handled. Each food group is assessed independently. This bill
is not about the legality of selling raw meat or other products;
it is about the legality of selling raw milk. The focus must be
on comparing the risks and benefits associated with a new law
that would legalize the sale of raw milk in Alaska and use
regulations to protect the public's health. The risks are
substantially greater with raw milk products than with
pasteurized milk products. Government officials have a duty to
protect those who do not have the capacity or sufficient
information to make a decision with respect to the foods that
they consume.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN noted there are other costs associated with HB
367, including the loss of public trust in a product and in the
government officials who are making these decisions. There is
also the cost to the industry if an outbreak occurs, and
tremendous risk to the industry if there is an outbreak. He
said the Alaska Department of Health & Social Services strongly
opposes HB 367 on the grounds that allowing the sale of raw milk
poses a substantial risk to the health of Alaskans.
1:41:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES asked whether there are any known cases of
outbreaks or illnesses in Alaska due to sales of raw milk.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN responded he has been in his job for only a short
time and is not aware of any outbreaks in Alaska in the recent
past. In response to Co-Chair Gatto, Dr. McLaughlin agreed to
provide further information when he submits his written
testimony to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired what the general shelf life is
for raw milk when it is properly cared for.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN deferred to the state veterinarian.
1:42:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked for further explanation of the drug-
resistant bacteria issue.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN replied there is a laundry list of bacteria that
have been implicated in the consumption of milk and,
specifically, raw milk. These bacteria have been changing over
time, and in the past 10 years in particular there has been a
dramatic increase in the incidence and prevalence of multi-drug-
and single-drug-resistant strains of various bacteria. Animals
shed these resistant bacteria in their feces and one of the
prime ways for milk contamination is through fecal contamination
during the milking process. It is much more difficult to treat
infections due to the prevalence of drug-resistant bacteria.
1:44:22 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO surmised that pasteurization eliminates drug-
resistant bacteria, but once a bacterium is acquired it is
difficult to treat because of its drug resistance.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN explained that Grade "A" raw milk for
pasteurization has an FDA allowable threshold of 300,000
bacteria per milliliter and Grade "A" pasteurized milk has an
allowable threshold of fewer than 20,000 bacteria per
milliliter. There has been an increased prevalence of drug-
resistant bacteria on farms, so people consuming raw milk are at
far greater risk for infection. Whether raw or pasteurized milk
is consumed, there is an increased chance that the bacteria
causing the infection will be resistant to at least one drug.
1:45:49 PM
DR. MCLAUGHLIN, in response to Co-Chair Johnson, reiterated that
new data from the CDC shows that of the 50 outbreaks that
occurred between the years 1998 and 2006, 92 percent were linked
to the consumption of liquid raw milk.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON understood this to mean there were 46 cases in
8 years caused by unpasteurized milk.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN clarified that the number is outbreaks, not
cases. An outbreak could involve anywhere from several cases to
hundreds of cases.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired how many cases these specific
outbreaks involved.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN said this is new data that will not be published
until the CDC presents it at the June [2008] conference of the
Council for State and Territorial Epidemiologists. However, he
offered to provide the committee with articles that have been
published from studies looking at raw milk consumption as a risk
factor for infectious illness between the years 1973 and 1992
and between the years 1998 and 2005.
1:48:30 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked how many cases it takes to be considered
an outbreak.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN responded what is considered an outbreak of an
infectious disease is often a grey zone and varies depending on
the disease and the baseline prevalence of the disease in the
community. One case of E. coli O157:H7, an uncommon and
potentially lethal pathogen, could be considered an outbreak.
One case of botulism is considered an outbreak. For more common
bacteria like Salmonella and Campylobacter an outbreak would be
10 or more cases.
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH inquired how many of the
aforementioned outbreaks were from the pasteurized milk.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN answered 46 outbreaks were attributed to the
consumption of unpasteurized milk and 4 were attributed to
pasteurized milk.
1:51:07 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked if the aforementioned pasteurized milk had
been compromised in some manner during the pasteurizing process.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN explained that during the pasteurization process,
temperatures are brought rapidly up to at least 161 degrees
Fahrenheit for at least 15 seconds, then the milk is immediately
cooled to below 40 degrees and packaged into plastic bags or
jugs. Pasteurization destroys human pathogens, yeasts, mold,
and many spoilage bacteria that may be carried in cow's milk.
Once the milk has gone through an appropriate pasteurization
process, the milk is considered to be sterilized from human
pathogens. There may be other bacteria present that are heat
resistant, but they are not human pathogens - with one
exception. That exception is spore-forming bacteria, such as
Bacillus cereus and the bacteria that can cause botulism which
produce heat-resistant spores. Outbreaks related to consumption
of pasteurized milk are almost always due to contamination after
the pasteurization process.
CO-CHAIR GATTO requested Dr. McLaughlin to submit his testimony
in writing.
DR. MCLAUGHLIN said he would do so, along with the other
information.
1:54:22 PM
ROBERT GERLACH, DVM, State Veterinarian, Office of the State
Veterinarian, Division of Environmental Health, in response to
Representative Edgmon's previous question, noted that the shelf
life of certified raw milk is 14 days after it is produced. A
number of studies were conducted in 2002, 2004, and 2005
regarding the contamination of raw milk that is associated with
the production on the farm. The sampling procedure involved 30
states and more than 1200 farms. Two to ten percent of the
farms had at least one human pathogen identified in the raw
milk. Two of the studies found that 25 percent of the dairies
that produced the milk had contaminated products; however, those
pathogens would be removed during pasteurization process. Dr.
Gerlach noted that 90 percent of the recent outbreaks of food-
borne illnesses have occurred in states that have certified test
programs for raw milk. He cited three outbreaks in 2007 that
were associated with one Pennsylvania farm that had
contamination despite being an exemplary farm in its sanitation
and disinfection and had gone through rigorous testing. This is
why there is concern in respect to the risk of raw milk
products. In response to Co-Chair Gatto, Dr. Gerlach said his
position is that the sale of raw milk products should be
prohibited. In further response, he said would submit his
testimony in writing.
1:59:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired whether there are any states that
provide raw milk to schools.
DR. GERLACH responded he does not know.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON acknowledged the stack of letters
supporting HB 367 in his packet, but said he is trying to weigh
the benefits versus the risks and will wait for another witness
to answer his question.
2:00:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in regard to drug-resistant bacteria,
asked whether the states [that have certified test programs for
raw milk] have regulations that prohibit these dairies from
using antibiotics in the feed or in the livestock.
DR. GERLACH replied yes, the dairies are restricted from using
certain products in order to label their products as organic.
Unfortunately, he said, multi-drug-resistant bacteria have been
found on all farms, as well as in wildlife and environmental
samplings in rural and urban areas. There is an increased
occurrence of multi-drug-resistant bacteria in any setting where
there are animals. In further response to Representative
Seaton, Dr. Gerlach said there has not been a study that has
shown that farms with a decreased use of antibiotics have any
less frequency of the multi-drug-resistant bacteria. These
bacteria seem to be pretty widespread and seem to be inherent
with the production of animals.
2:03:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether raw milk that is sold
goes through any sort of process or does it just go straight
from the cow to the container.
DR. GERLACH answered HB 367 would address just the direct sale
of the raw milk from the animal. Generally, it is contained
within a bulk tank or a vat and then distributed, so there is
not a process that the milk goes through prior to its sale.
2:04:33 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether DEC requires the use of stainless
steel containers and a daily cleanup of the milk processing
facility.
DR. GERLACH explained that all Grade "A" dairies must go through
a permitting process where the dairy itself is inspected for
cleanliness and handling of the animals and the wastes. The
water is tested and the equipment used for handling the milk is
checked. There is a standard procedure for cleaning and
disinfecting the equipment used for collection and transfer of
the milk to the bulk tank. There are also procedures required
for sanitation and cleanliness of the workers caring for the
animals and collecting the milk samples. The system for Grade
"A" milk is very rigorous to try to reduce the contamination and
incident of food-borne bacteria. Even with these guidelines,
two to ten percent of the production facilities still end up
having bacteria in the milk before it is pasteurized.
CO-CHAIR GATTO informed the committee that the $270,000 fiscal
note for DEC has a two-page analysis that incorporates much of
this information.
2:06:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH, in response to Representative
Kawasaki's question, said there was a filtration process for the
raw milk produced on the farm that she used to be on.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN interjected that there are safe handling
procedures for a lot of foods. He advised that things be put in
perspective in regard to outbreaks associated with all other
foods. Between the years 1998 and 2005 there were over 10,000
documented outbreaks attributed to food-borne illnesses. Raw
milk was associated with 0.4 percent of those outbreaks. Look
at the number of recent outbreaks associated with raw spinach
and strawberries, he said. The question is whether raw milk
carries any unique risks that distinguish it from other ordinary
foods. The FDA does not make any comparisons to these other
foods. No one says how many people got sick from eating hot
dogs, spinach, or strawberries. It all goes back to safe
handling practice and certainly milk should not be purchased
from a dairy where the cows have manure on their udders.
CO-CHAIR GATTO responded there is no opportunity to review the
farm's cleanliness when the product is on the grocery shelf.
2:10:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON commented that she was raised on a dairy
farm and she drank filtered raw milk while growing up, and as an
adult she raised goats and drank raw goat milk. In all that
time no one ever get sick from the milk. She said she feels
confident in this and that someone doing this will be pretty
careful in how the milk is handled and the cleanliness.
The committee further discussed the filtering and cleaning
processes used for raw milk on Representative Wilson's and
Representative Fairclough's family farms.
2:14:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FAIRCLOUGH allowed there is a positive history
with U.S. dairy farmers, but that she is at pause given the
public health risks brought forward by today's testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON commented that a few years ago there was
not the antibiotic-resistant bacteria problem that is seen
today, especially in hospitals. So much antibiotic is being
injected and fed to farm animals today that was not used years
ago and now there is antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the milk.
What is the risk of human pathogens today compared to when there
were no antibiotics on the farms, he asked. The question is
whether it is a different situation for people who live on the
farm with those animals and people who continually consume these
raw products which results in immunity to certain diseases over
time. Will people purchasing raw milk also develop immunities
over time, he asked.
CO-CHAIR GATTO agreed that exposure to bacteria is a good thing
as long as it is not fatal. However, he is concerned about
infants and fetuses given the testimony in this regard.
2:20:03 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO said he is perfectly okay with a willing buyer
meeting a willing seller. However, is the state off the hook in
allowing the sale of raw milk, he asked.
ELISE HSIEH, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section,
Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, replied that if
the legislature chooses to weigh the risks and makes the public
policy decision [to allow the sale of raw milk products], then
the decision should be protected by immunity.
2:21:30 PM
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired about the liability of the farmer who
sells milk with a pathogen in it. Would liability insurance
need to be carried by the farmer, he asked.
MS. HSIEH answered yes, the [farmer] would be liable and could
be sued if someone becomes ill and sustains damages. Carrying
insurance is not legally required because that is not included
in the bill.
CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether passing HB 367 would indemnify
the farmer from legal action.
MS. HSIEH responded no, there is no indemnification provision.
2:23:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON cited Title 21 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) banning the interstate distribution and sale
of raw milk. Does this mean there is no violation of the
federal regulation if the raw milk is distributed only within
the state of Alaska, he asked.
MS. HSIEH replied yes, that is correct. States are allowed to
regulate raw milk sales within their borders for consumption by
consumers.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised cheese made from raw milk could
not be sold out-of-state.
MS. HSIEH answered yes, that is her interpretation.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN stated cheese with a shelf life of 60-90
days can be sold [out-of-state].
2:25:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said his interpretation of Title 21 is
that no raw milk product can be sold in interstate commerce and
can be sold only in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN responded there are people online who can
answer the question.
MS. HSIEH interjected that under Title 21, Section 1240.61,
paragraph (a), there is a curing of certain cheese varieties
that would be exempt from the regulation.
2:27:03 PM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), stated she will
be sending a fact sheet to the committee that was prepared by
the Department of Health & Social Services, the Department of
Environmental Conservation and the Department of Natural
Resources. She clarified that another allowable process other
than pasteurization is aging for 60 days, and this is adequate
for eliminating pathogens in hard cheeses. It is correct that
federal statutes do not allow any raw milk or milk products to
be sold across state lines. Within state boundaries, the FDA
gives recommendations but does not tell the state what to do.
Alaska has adopted the federal rules outright and uses the FDA's
Pasteurized Milk Ordinance for regulating milk.
MS. RYAN explained that pasteurization eliminates not only the
pathogens but also contagious diseases, such as tuberculosis and
brucellosis. The Division of Environmental Health, like its
sister agencies FDA and CDC, has not seen any reductions in
benefits from pasteurized milk as compared to raw milk.
Responding to Representative Edgmon's earlier question, Ms. Ryan
stated schools cannot serve raw milk, especially if they receive
any federal funding. For organic labeling, there are organic
standards that would require disclosure of antibiotics on the
label. The way HB 367 is currently written, there are no
restrictions preventing antibiotics from being in the raw milk.
She warned about emerging diseases and that these diseases
primarily come from animals, such as E. coli which is a disease
that was not a problem 50 years ago.
2:31:00 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether the aforementioned E. coli is the
same or different than the E. coli naturally carried in the
human gut.
MS. RYAN replied it is a different species - E. coli O157 -
which is primarily in bovine intestines and not the same type of
E. coli found in human intestines.
MS. RYAN stated that the permitting or pre-certification process
does not stop outbreaks from occurring like it does for other
products such as shellfish. The state of Washington just had an
outbreak in 2005. Good sanitation and pre-testing of the
products does not seem to stop the outbreaks.
CO-CHAIR GATTO asked whether exposure to some of the bacteria
generates a permanent immunity.
MS. RYAN said she cannot answer that. There may be some
indication of that, but what is being seen is people with
permanent kidney damage after exposure to E. coli O157.
2:33:05 PM
DON LINTELMAN, Owner, Northern Lights Dairy, stated his dairy
pasteurizes its milk and went into pasteurization because, at
the time, the dairy had more milk than it could sell as raw
milk. Additionally, washing the jars returned by customers
created a problem for the dairy. The dairy uses [Charm
Sciences, Inc] tests for 40 different antibiotics and also
performs coliform and Standard Plate Counts (SPC counts). He
said he would not want to see a raw milk bill go through.
CO-CHAIR GATTO inquired whether raw milk can be Grade "A".
MR. LINTELMAN answered no, Grade "A" must be pasteurized. In
further response to Co-Chair Gatto, he stated raw milk would be
Grade "B" and Grade "C". Grade "B" goes into cans or bulk tanks
until it is inspected and Grade "C" is milking by hand.
2:35:15 PM
CO-CHAIR GATTO noted that the next witness, Larry Devilbiss, is
the former director of the Division of Agriculture, Department
of Natural Resources.
LARRY DEVILBISS stated he is now a farmer and has studied this
for 10 years. He understood the majority of states have raw
milk legislation. He knows from a previous meeting with
regulators on a national basis that none of that raw milk
legislation was supported by the regulating agencies in those
states - it always happened at the level of legislators. He
said he has also followed the horror stories just heard by the
committee, but would like to repeat previous testimony that it
is minuscule compared to the rest of the food industry.
MR. DEVILBISS said he grew up in Alaska milking cows by hand and
has travelled a lot overseas, and it is his unscientific opinion
that the sterility Americans have grown up with these days,
including exposure to only pasteurized milk, has created a race
of people who are extremely vulnerable and who are unable to
drink the water and eat the products that people in other
countries eat every day. Sooner or later that will backfire on
this nation. It is one reason why people are so vulnerable to
outbreaks like the E. coli outbreaks with spinach a few years
ago. He said it is his conviction that raw milk could play a
huge role in building up immune systems.
MR. DEVILBISS said he firmly supports the labeling of raw milk
and that raw milk should not be dumped on the unsuspecting. It
should be labeled with the risks that have been cited today.
Instructions for pasteurization or partial pasteurization could
be on the label as it is not a high-tech process. He does not
think there will be new startups in the dairy industry in Alaska
until these new niches are opened up. He supports HB 367 or
something like it. He said that when he was director [of the
Division of Agriculture], he suggested bringing forward the
requirement that sales be limited to direct sales and that the
farmers be required to keep a customer list for one year after
sales so if there was an outbreak it would be much easier to
track. This has been done successfully in other states. He
said he thinks all farmers are aware that they bear the
liability on this and carry the appropriate liability insurance
that is required for most farmer's products.
2:41:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked how available liability insurance is
for raw milk products and what the cost is compared to
pasteurized dairy products.
MR. DEVILBISS said he does not have any specifics and is sure
there is a difference, but probably not a significant
difference. "We have to carry $2 million per incident just to
be able to sell an unprocessed carrot in a store," he said. He
did not know whether a raw milk component would change that a
lot because when he started selling meat it did not make a
difference on his insurance policy. He advised the committee to
talk to an [insurance] agent.
2:42:43 PM
RICK WILLIAMS, speaking on behalf of himself, said he hopes the
law will change because he does not feel it has any business in
this state due to Alaska's location. Giving the people of
Alaska the right to choose where they buy their fresh milk and
produce will create new agriculture and a greater self-reliance
for the state. He urged the committee to vote in favor of HB
367 and give people the right to choose what they feed their
families. He said he has been drinking raw milk almost all of
his life and in the last six years he has not had a cold or flu
or a flu shot. He related that four people were documented as
dying from pasteurized milk in Massachusetts. He said that if
there is a documented case of someone dying from raw milk he has
not been able to find it. Most of the people that come to his
farm wanting fresh milk or cheese already know what they are
getting into and it is not an issue with them because they are
already educated. As far as the studies from the federal
agencies, most of that is from the Lower 48 and this is an
Alaska issue.
2:45:54 PM
HEATHER FAIR said that in 2007 she became the owner of dairy
goats which she milks for her personal consumption. She
researched this for 11 years because her health has been failing
using the more traditional means. She also has other livestock
for personal use. She supports HB 367 and has provided the
committee with copies of e-mails she sent to Dr. Gerlach. She
said she echoes the thoughts of Rick Williams, as well as the
statistics cited by Representative Neuman relating to
perspective. She said she is confused by Dr. McLaughlin's
statement that raw milk should not be compared to other food
stuffs. Raw milk is the only food that it is illegal to sell in
Alaska in its raw form. She cited statics from the Weston A.
Price Foundation that between the years 1990 and 2004 there were
numerous illnesses from poultry, produce, beef, eggs, and
seafood totaling roughly 100,000 cases. There are over 9.2
million cases of food-borne illnesses per year in the U.S. from
Campylobacter, Salmonella, E. coli, and these sorts of things.
Most important, however, is that over the past 20 years
pasteurized milk has been the source of almost 240,000 cases of
illness and 620 deaths, according to the Weston A. Price
Foundation. Pasteurization destroys the good bacteria as well
as the bad, so any harmful bacteria that becomes present after
the pasteurization process can flourish. Destroying this good
bacteria also affects the natural defenses of humans. Twenty-
eight states have made the sale of raw milk legal despite the
opposition of federal agencies. Ms. Fair said it would be
counterproductive to produce a product that is unclean and makes
people sick because most farmers consume their own products.
2:52:39 PM
MS. RYAN directed attention to testimony in the committee's
packets from John Sheehan, Director of the Division of Plant and
Dairy Safety at the FDA, which [the Division of Environmental
Health] supports and which refutes many of the points also in
the committee's packets. The division believes that the limited
outbreaks from raw milk are primarily because it has been
illegal to sell and not widely distributed. She acknowledged
that outbreaks do occur with other food, but [the division]
controls it as much as it can. For example, chicken is not
restricted from being sold raw because people eat it cooked, as
far as the division knows, whereas that is not the case for raw
milk. Every food product is regulated differently depending on
how it is handled by the consumer.
2:54:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON inquired how the raw milk is actually
distributed and sold if it is not sold in stores. He said he is
asking the question in relation to the economic development that
HB 367 might engender.
MS. RYAN responded there are dairies that sell their milk to a
processor, but there is more milk than the processors can buy.
With the Matanuska Maid Dairy closing the state is in a flux
while it waits for more processors to come on line and start
buying milk. [The Division of Environmental Health] permits the
processor and the milk farmer selling to the processor. It is a
very rigorous process to sell milk because of the inherent risks
and the number of people drinking it, including children. A new
certified processor expected to be opening in the Matanuska-
Susitna Valley in the next two weeks and [the division] will be
right there to get that processor certified.
2:56:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON asked whether the fact that raw milk is
not pasteurized means it is not processed.
MS. RYAN replied that is how [the Division of Environmental
Health] would interpret it. Right now only milk that has been
pasteurized is allowed to be sold. If a person owns a cow, that
person can do whatever he or she wants for drinking the milk,
but if the milk is sold to the public it must be pasteurized and
go through the division's certification program. The bill would
allow raw milk to also be sold to restaurants and grocery
stores, so some of the fiscal note reflects one new inspector to
be out at the farms helping those new dairies to follow some
sort of a certification plan put together by [the division].
The fiscal note is also to increase [the division's] inspections
of restaurants and grocery stores so that it is clearly
separated to prevent mistakes in providing it to people.
2:57:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON surmised the economic development
potential of HB 367 could be fairly significant.
MS. RYAN said it is difficult for her to say. It will compete
with processors and people providing pasteurized milk.
CO-CHAIR GATTO guessed that most milk in the major grocery
chains is from Seattle.
MS. RYAN answered that the milk product from the Northern Lights
Dairy does not get much further than Fairbanks right now.
CO-CHAIR GATTO commented that with the Matanuska Label now gone,
this bill would go back to local agriculture.
2:58:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted he does not personally drink milk,
but said he does not have a problem when there is a willing
seller and a willing buyer. How would DEC monitor compliance of
raw milk sellers in order to ensure safety, he asked, and can
the department ensure safety with the amount of money in the
fiscal note.
MS. RYAN stated the fiscal note reflects different inspectors
for different programs. She said her division has the state
veterinarian through which dairy operations are regulated. Ms.
Ryan's division also regulates the food safety program, so a
food safety inspector is needed to conduct inspections at the
end-of-market. Her division would need an additional dairy
inspector to work with the farms to ensure they are following
the regulation standards for cleanliness, testing, and herd
maintenance. All of that would have to be developed in
regulation. The division's best guess is that one inspector
could probably handle it, provided it is only the six primarily
goat farms on the road system that are currently being heard
from. The third person included in the fiscal note is for the
Division of Environmental Health's laboratory which is the FDA
certified lab for testing cell counts, antibiotics, bacteria,
and everything else that is looked for in milk. She related
that California just did a survey of states that allow the sale
of raw milk and found there are still outbreaks. California
itself just had an outbreak from raw milk and is now re-
evaluating its raw milk program. She said she did know that the
division could effectively say it could do it safely - that is a
policy decision for the legislature. However, the division's
public health perspective is that raw milk is unable to be sold
in a manner that is as safe as other products.
3:01:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that it is all a general fund
request. Could it be a receipts supported service, he asked.
MS. RYAN responded that how this is funded is at the will of the
legislature; the division put it into the general fund just to
start the discussion. It has been controversial in the past
regarding who gets free service from [the Division of
Environmental Health] and who does not. Historically, dairy
farmers have gotten free inspection.
3:02:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON inquired why not have the person who is
currently testing the pasteurized milk also test the raw milk.
Will it be that much more testing that another person is needed,
she asked.
MS. RYAN replied [the Division of Environmental Health] is
assuming so. It is difficult to know how much work is involved
in helping the farmers since the division must develop the
regulations that the farmers must comply with. But,
historically, dairy farmers have needed quite a bit of support,
oversight, and technical assistance to stay in compliance.
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON clarified she was talking about the lab.
MS. RYAN answered yes, because [the division] modeled its
approach on how it regulates the pasteurized milk at farms. A
lab must be on site to conduct daily testing and sampling of
batches and [the division] certifies that lab to make sure it is
doing the tests right. So, not only is [the division]
collecting samples and double-checking on a monthly basis, [the
division] is also certifying the farm's facility to be doing the
fecal coliform counts on site so that there are daily checks.
3:03:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to the sponsor's statement that
only four-tenths of food-borne outbreaks in the U.S. were from
raw milk. Is there any comparative data on what percentage of
the total food supply is represented by raw milk, he inquired.
MS. RYAN responded that the number would be extremely low since
raw milk sales are illegal in most of the U.S. [The division]
would expect it to increase if raw milk sales increase. She
said she will get back to the committee with a percentage.
[HB 367 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|